beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing Aluminium joints, producing, and assembling bicycles. The Defendant is a person whose registration has been completed as the representative director of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) established for the purpose of the bicycle manufacturing business, etc. from October 20 to May 12, 2017.
B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account on September 6, 2016, and KRW 15 million on September 21, 2016.
C. The Plaintiff’s actual inspection agent filed a complaint with the Defendant and E with the purport that “D, in collusion with the Defendant and the Defendant’s father, acquired KRW 10 million from D on September 6, 2016, and KRW 15 million on September 21, 2016, by transfer from September 21, 2016 to the account in the Defendant’s name.”
The prosecutor in charge issued a disposition to dismiss a complaint against the defendant against the defendant on the ground that "No evidence exists to acknowledge the suspected fact, such as that it is difficult to conclude that D received money was a loan due to the possibility that it was given in return for investment money or right to sell bicycles." On the ground that "D only files a complaint against the defendant on the ground that the defendant sent an account number to him/her as text messages, and it is doubtful that D sent money to the defendant's representative account in the name of C upon his/her request, and wired money to the defendant's account in the name of C, and stated that the defendant was not subject to direct deception."
(In Incheon District Prosecutors' Office 2017No. 4219). 【No dispute exists in the ground for recognition, Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 25 million to the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 25 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff. Thus, the above facts and evidence No. 4 are acknowledged.